Back
2010 Supreme(Kar) 1025
High Court of Karnataka
THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. J.S. KHEHAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. ABDUL NAZEER
M/s. V.S. Lad & Sons & Others
Versus
State of Karnataka & Others
Writ Petition No.24103 of 2010 (GM-MMS) C/w WP.Nos.25291, 25290, 25288, 25268, 24532, 24529, 24493, 24490-91, 24485, 24482, 24481, 24105, 24104, 24062, 24530-31, 25070-71, 25640, 25827, 26221, 26222, 26223 of 2010 (GM-MMS)
Decided On : 19-11-2010
For the Petitioners:R.N. Narasimha Murthy, Udaya Holla, Sr. Advocates for K.N. Phanindra, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R1 to R5, Ashok Haranahalli, Advocate General a/w R.G. Kolle, AGA, R6 & R7, Ravindran, Addl. Solicitor General a/w C. Ramakrishna, CGSC.
Headnote:CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - Articles 162 & 301: [J.S.Khehar C.J. & S.Abdul Nazeer,JJ] Ban on export of iron are - Held, Executive order passed have no effect on trade, commerce and intercourse "within the territory oh India" and is not violative of Article 301 of Constitution.
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - Articles 162 & 254: [J.S.Khehar C.J. & S.Abdul Nazeer,JJ] Executive action - Ban on export of iron ore was under Section 23 C (1) (g) of Mines and Minerals Act "for the purpose of prevention of illegal mining, transportation and storage of minerals - Activity of State Government, besides falling within purviews of Mines and Minerals Act, would also fall within jurisdiction of State Government under Entries 1 and 2 of the State list, Schedule 7 - Tracing theft of mineral in State of Karnataka, and taking action in furtherance thereof, is a question of "law and order", rather than a question of "import and export" - Held, Provisions of Foreign Trade Act and/or Customs Act, cannot be relied upon to hold action as without jurisdiction.
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA ACT, 1985 - Section 7 (2-A): [J.S.Khehar C.J. & S.Abdul Nazeer,JJ] Investigation by Lokayukta - Issue relating to illegal mining of iron ore in State - Interim report submitted by Lokayukta and recommendations of Lokayukta revealed mass scale illegal mining - Facts that have also been taken into consideration by State Government included discovery of huge quantities of illegally mined iron ore at various ports in State, ready for being exported to foreign countries - State Government acted on the basis of long sequence of facts and not, solely on said report of Lokayukta - Held, Order passed by State Government imposing ban on iron ore is not arbitrary.
MINES & MINERALS (REGULATION & DEVELOPMENT) ACT, 1957 - Section 23-C: [J.S. Khehar C.J. & S. Abdul Nazeer,JJ] Executive power of State - Order banning ’export’ of iron ore - Held, From a collective perusal of Sections 13, 15, 17 A, 18 and 23-C of the Mines and Minerals Acts, the scheme of control over different field, covered by the Mines and Minerals Act, becomes clear. From the aforesaid, there can be no doubt, that the scheme of the Mines and Minerals Act vests the authority of making rules for preventing illegal mining, transportation and storage of minerals under Section 23-C with the concerned State Government. And thereby, also vests the concerned State Government with the executive authority to deal with the subjects envisaged under Section 23-C of the Mines and Minerals Act. The question which arises for consideration from the impugned orders dated 26.7.2010 and 28.7.2010 by which State Government has prohibited export of iron-ore from ports located in Stat neither relates to "regulation" of mines and minerals (falling in the first part), nor to "development" of mines and minerals (falling in the second part), but pointedly relates to the subject of "preventing" illegal mining activities (falling under the third part) under Section 23-C thereof. As such, there can be no doubt that the State executive had the jurisdictional authority, and competence to issue the impugned orders.
It must also be understood, that the mineral found in the geographical area of a State, are owned by the State Government concerned. The Central Government has no ownership rights in respect of minerals. In case of violation of norms, or terms and conditions, the loosing party, therefore is the State Government. The State Government is the owner of the minerals found in the State. It is therefore, that measures to prevent illegal mining activities have been vested with the respective State Governments under Section 23-C of the Mines and Minerals Act. In this behalf entries 1 and 2 in the State List of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India, also have to be kept in mind. Therefore, the authority to prevent illegal mining, transportation and storage of minerals in violation of the regulatory and developmental measures introduced by the Central Government, came to be vested with the State Government, under the Mines and Minerals Act also. Thus viewed, it would b justified to conclude, that the jurisdictional authority to pass the impugned orders, which purport to have been issued to prevent the aforesaid illegal activities, were clearly within the domain and jurisdiction of the State Government under Section 23-C of the Mines and Minerals Act.
MINES & MINERALS (REGULATION & DEVELOPMENT) ACT, 1957 - Section 23-C: [J.S.Khehar C.J. & S.Abdul Nazeer,JJ] Ban on export of iron ore - Held, It is a temporary measure and cannot be considered as ’prohibitory’.
J.S. Khehar, C.J.
A number of writ petitions seeking to assail two orders passed by the State government dated 26.07.2010 and 28.07.2010 have been clubbed together for disposal. By the aforesaid two orders, the State government has prohibited the export of iron-ore from 10 ports located in Karnataka. The State government, in order to give effect to its aforesaid determination, has not been issuing mining dispatch permits for transport of iron-ore meant for export. Accordingly, Writ petitions No.24103 of 2010 (M/s. V.S. Lad & Sons v. State of Karnataka & Others); 25291 of 2010 (Kariganuru Minerals v. State of Karnataka & Others); 25290 of 2010 (M/s. S.B. Minerals v. State of Karnataka & Others); 25288 of 2010 (Kumarswamy Mineral v. State of Karnataka & Others), 25268 of 2010 (Veerabhadrappa Sangappa and Co., v. State of Karnataka & Others); 24532 of 2010 (M/s. Deccan Mining Syndicate Pvt. Ltd., v. State of Karnataka & Others); 24529 of 2010 (M/s. Lakshminarayana Mining Company v. State of Karnataka & Others); 24493 of 2010 (M/s. Hothur Traders v. State of Karnataka & Others); 24490-24491 of 2010 (M/s. Mineral Enterprises Ltd., State of Karnataka & Others); 24485 of 2010 (H.G. Rangangoud v. State of Karnataka & Others); 24482 of 2010 (M/s. Shree Gavisiddeshwara Minerals v. State of Karnataka & Others); 24481 of 2010 (M/s. Bharath Mines and Minerals v. State of Karnataka & Others); 24105 of 2010 (M/s. Zeenath Transport v. State of Karnataka & Others); 24104 of 2010 (R. Praveen Chandra v. State of Karnataka & Others); 24062 of 2010 (M/s. Sesa Goa Limited v. State of Karnataka & Others); 22945 of 2010 (M/s. V.S.L. Mining Co., Pvt. Ltd., v. State of Karnataka & Others); 24530-24531 of 2010 (Lakshmi Narayana Mining Company Pvt. Ltd., and another v. State of Karnataka & Others); 25070-25071 of 2010 (Balaji Mines and Minerals Pvt. Ltd., v. State of Karnataka & Others); 25640 of 2010 (M/s. P. Balasubba Shetty and sons v. State of Karnataka & Others); 25827 of 2010 (M/s. MSPL Ltd., v. State of Karnataka & Others) 26221 of 2010 (M/s. Suggalamma Gudda Mining and Co., v. State of Karnataka & Others); 26222 of 2010 (M/s. Vibhutigudda Mines Pvt. Ltd., v. State of Karnataka & Others); and 26223 of 2010 (M/s. Vibhutigudda Mines Pvt. Ltd., v. State of Karnataka & Others) have been filed. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the rival parties, in all the aforesaid writ petitions agreed, that Writ Petition No.24103 of 2010 should be treated as the main case. Accordingly, the factual matrix of the controversy has mainly been recorded on the basis of the pleadings contained in W.P.No.24103 of 2010, additional facts were also recorded from some other petitions as well, when learned counsel invited our attention to some factual aspects therefrom.
Preface to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners.
2. M/s. V.S. Lad & Sons, the petitioner in W.P.No.24103 of 2010, claims to be engaged in the activity of mining since 1956. M/s. V.S. Lad and Sons, which is a partnership firm, asserts that it holds Mining Lease No.2290 in the State of Karnataka. In order to substantiate, that its activities are carried out in the most professional manner, it is asserted, that the petitioner firm was conferred with several mines awards for safety. In this behalf, it is sought to be pointed out, that the Indian Bureau of Mines, Ministry of Mines, Government of India has commended it for “Overall performance”, “Afforestation”, “Dust Suppression Arrangement”, “Top Soil Management”, “Waster Dump Management”, “Drilling and Blasting”, “Environment Control and Dust Separation” by conferring awards on the petitioner. A prestigious award i.e. CAPEXIL, was bestowed on the petitioner firm by the Ministry of Commerce, Government of India, in recognition of its outstanding performance in the activity of iron-ore export during the year 2005-2006. It is also the case of the petitioner firm, that one of its Managing Partner has received t
